<<<< Newsclip Autopsy >>>>

This site is dedicated to dissect mainstream news and to expose the half-truths, mis-truths and, most importantly, the truth left out.
1. Cut and paste a brief excerpt from an established news source.
2. Provide a link.
3. Explain the half-truth, mis-truth or information left out.
It's time to disassemble the "manufactured consent".
NOTE: IF THIS SITE IS "FOCUSED" ON AN ISSUE, PLEASE POST ONLY "FOCUS" RELATED EXCERPTS.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

TRUTH NOT TOLD: Blair Admits Guilt

I was watching a BBC video report of Prime Minister Tony Blair's press conference today because I heard that he had the audacity to make this comment today:

"September 11 for me was a wake-up call. Do you know what I think? A lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again."

No, Tony -- the world didn't turn over and go to sleep. Quite the opposite, in fact. I, for one, do not feel sleepy when I'm...well...outraged. You see, we have even noticed that the world is NOT a safer place since 2001 thanks to YOUR policy of illegally and unjustifiably invading a country which posed no immediate threat to your country -- and then having no plan to win the peace.

Alas, I digress.

The real reason for this post is to communicate to you all that Tony Blair, unreported by the corporate media, has finally admitted that the Iraq war has fueled the so-called "war on terror". That's right, folks. This war criminal has finally revealed to the world that he believes the war in Iraq is helping Al Qaeda. Don't believe me? Read Tony's words:

I'm not saying that any of these things [such as the Iraq war] don't affect their [bombers] warped logic or warped reasoning of what they do or that they don't use these things to try to recruit people. But I do say -- we shouldn't compromise with it...we shouldn't even allow them the vestige of an excuse for what they do.

Funny...those same exact words could be applied towards the U.S. and Britain's actions.

Don't you think it's high time the media call George and Tony on this admission of guilt? What the hell are they waiting for? Maybe they think the Prime Minister will actually handcuff himself at the next press conference? Who knows?!

Monday, July 18, 2005

TRUTH REVEALED: My Take on the Wolfowitz Downing Street Letter

A copy of the acutal letter has been given to Raw Story revealing a conversation that took place between the former British ambassador to the United States, Sir Christopher Meyer, and one of the architects of the Iraq war. PNAC member -- Paul Wolfowitz.

The most revealing truth about this document, to me, is the overall consistency in this letter. It can be summed up in one passage. Sir Christopher Meyer writes:

We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option.

Remember, this letter was written in Mar. 18, 2002 -- a FULL YEAR before the Iraq War began. Throughout this letter, two high-ranking officials discussed "Regime Change" without the mention of any other options. The only question that was up for debate was "how would this be done?"

The other most revealing aspect of this letter to me is Paul Wolfowitz's insistence on NOT discrediting the INC -- despite warnings from Meyer. Is this evidence that the Bush regime was cherry-picking intelligence? No. But it sure as hell looks like it. At the very least, Wolfowitz is "in denial" about some basic assumptions about when and when not to believe intelligence. Here are 3 passages which pertain to this issue:

..."The CIA stubbornly refused to recognise this. They unreasonably denigrate the INC because of their fixation with Chalabi."...

...When I mentioned that the INC was penetraded by Iraqi intelligence, Wolfowitz commented that this was probably the case with all the opposition groups: it was something we would have to live with...

...Wolfowitz brushed over my reference to the absence of Sunni in the INC: there was a big difference between Iraq and Iranian Shia. The former just wanted to be rid of Saddam..

Raw Story uses a very juicy catchphrase "wrongfoot" to pump this story. It is a curious phrase which should make one wonder (cynically) what was meant by it, however methinks the use and context in the letter is too vague to be used as THE focus for the whole letter. Here is the catchphrase in context:

I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SORs and the critical importance of the MEPP (Middle-East Peace Agreement) as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy.

Does this mean that they were scheming to deceive Hussein so that he would do something that might cause justification for an attack? Perhaps. But, maybe Meyer simply thought that just having the inspectors there would "wrongfoot" Hussein. Again, I think the more important thing (and the strongest assumption we can make) about this passage (and others in this letter) is that it seems obvious that the decision for "regime change" was a done deal a year before the illegal invasion would begin.

Friday, July 15, 2005

TRUTH NOT ASKED: The Question that's BIGGER than "Who told Rove?"

In light of important new developments in this story from Pakistani Intelligence, we should be pressing the press to ask some specific questions about the "ORANGE ALERT SCANDAL" that took place in July 2004.

A Pakistani security official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Tuesday that despite failing to capture some al Qaeda suspects after Khan's arrest, the country's security agencies were chasing them and would eventually get them.

The official would not reveal the names or nationalities of the fugitives who evaded arrest.

That's right! The U.S. and Britain KNOW THE NAMES of the fugitives that escaped due to the GOP leak.

THE QUESTION THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN JOURNALISTS SHOULD BE ASKING RIGHT NOW:

Did any of the fugitives that escaped the 2004 round-up of an Al Qaeda cell in Pakistan take part in the London Bombing?

If this turns out to be the case -- the Rove scandal will look like a walk in the park, folks. Afterall, 50+ British citizens may have died as a result.

---------------------

UPDATE:

Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, was a guest of the Labour MP Jon Trickett in July 2004,four months after he had been identified by intelligence officials as a "criminal associate" of one of the subjects of a major counter-terrorism operationthat had resulted in several arrests.

Mohammed Sadique Khan was identified on the periphery of a major counter-terrorism operation last year and is said to have been a "criminal associate" of one man arrested on suspicion of terrorism. Yet even after that operation, Khan was allowed to teach young children and visit the Commons.

And Khan, along with the two other bombers from Leeds, was yesterday said tohave been banned from three mosques in the city, with a suggestion it was for their "radical" views.

Were there any clues buried in the individual histories of the other bombers - warning signs that should have been spotted, but weren't?

So, just to refresh our memories, here's what we know so far:

* British intelligence, according to the Scotsman.com knew that one of the London bombers, Mohammed Sadique Khan, was a "criminal associate" of one of the subjects of a major counter-terrorism operation that had resulted in several arrests -- 4 MONTHS BEFORE GETTING A GUIDED TOUR OF PARLIAMENT BY Labour MP Jon Trickett in 2004.

* Tanweer's (another London bomber) uncle, Bashir Ahmed, said from England that his nephew traveled to Lahore, [Pakistan] earlier this year to study Islam. But the officials said they believed he also made a trip in the latter half of 2004, in which he met with Osama Nazir, a Pakistani militant...[AP Report]

* Pakistani intelligence (and I assume, U.S. and Britain) KNOW THE NAMES of the fugitives that escaped in the round-up of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan due to the U.S. government leak of his name in July 2004.

Inquiring minds should be wondering if the fugitives that escaped the botched round-up in 2004 had any participatory role in the London bombings -- since we apparently know the names and nationalities of these individuals.

Inquiring minds should also be wondering why the British officials and government are saying that they knew nothing about these bombing suspects -- When in fact, British Intelligence DID know LAST YEAR that Khan was a "criminal associate" with an terrorist cell. One should also wonder why a Labour MP (4 months after knowing Khan's association with terrorists) was giving this person A TOUR OF PUBLICLY INACCESSIBLE AREAS OF PARLIAMENT!!!

Inquiring minds should now be wondering why Pakistani intelligence is already, at great speed, connecting the dots about one of the London bombers, Shahzad Tanweer, to areas of Pakistan where he may have received training and marching orders from local terrorist cells there.

Inquiring minds should now be wondering how warning signs -- such as Khan being banned from mosques due to his "radical" views -- were supposedly unknown by British athorities, when British intelligence tagged him as a "criminal associate".

The transformation was gradual, but then his relentless reading of the Quran and daily prayers became almost an obsession, his friends told The Associated Press. He became withdrawn and increasingly angry over the war in Iraq, according to those who knew him best.

The U.S.-led war was what likely drove him to blow himself up on a subway train last week, said his friends.

There may be very reasonable explanations to these questions that I've written above. I still would like to hear them though.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

TRUTH REVEALED: The New York Times is a Master at Deception

A brilliant article by Sanjoy Mahajan in ZNET analyzes with crystalline clarity and exposes the shameless cover-up tactics used by The New York Times when dealing with the Downing Street Memos (minutes) and briefings.

In Mahajan's words:

The NYT articles -- masterpieces of delay, indirection, distraction, fake rebuttals, and elegant omission -- keep readers ignorant of the lies and the lying liars who tell them. No wonder so many Americans still support this gangster war.

In Mahajan's article he first compares headlines from the British media with the NYT.

British Headlines:

MI6 chief told PM: Americans 'fixed' case for war

Blair planned Iraq war from start

Blair faces US probe over secret Iraq invasion plan

NYT Headlines:

British Memo On U.S. Plans For Iraq War Fuels Critics

Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made

Memo Shows Bush Misled Public, Antiwar Group Says

He points out that the NYT headlines -- unlike the British headlines -- glaringly omitts what was actually said in the meeting with the MI6 director, among other things:

The NYT headlines either ignore the memo [2,6]; deny its main point [4], quote others denying it [3], quote war critics or describe the memo's effect on them [1,7], or report the memo as being of mere clinical interest [5]. No headline states what was said in the meeting, a feat the Sunday Times managed back on March 20: 'MI6 chief told PM: Americans 'fixed' case for war'. One Sunday Times headline (22 May), like the NYT, mentions the effect of the memo, but it also reveals important information from the memo, the 'secret Iraq invasion plan'.

(numbers in square brackets refer to the headlines listed in his article)

In each New York Times article, Mahajan does a masterful critique on how the writers fake, dodge and shift the focus of the articles from the important and damning facts found within The Downing Street Memos (minutes).

Here are some NYT headlines with excerpts of Mahajan's analyses of each article:

Bush and Blair Deny 'Fixed' Iraq Reports

The article allows that 'The statements contradicted assertions in the memorandum...', but it spends most of its remaining space discussing merely the effect of the memo. Its contents have 'dogged Mr. Blair...', and he was 'generally unsmiling through the 25-minute news conference'. The first paragraph, again focusing on the effect over the content, says that the memo upset critics who 'see it as evidence that the president was intent to go to war with Iraq earlier than the White House has said.' Like the statement in [1] that military planning began in November 2001, the statement is true but irrelevant: irrelevant because it is not intrinsically terrible to go to war earlier than said. If it were only a week earlier, for example, who cares? The reporting obscures how Bush first decided to invade, then, to grow legal fig leaves for Blair, cooked up a UN ultimatum designed to fail. As reported on the front page of the London Guardian:

Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made

Careful reading reveals that the article is discussing another document: not the memo but rather the briefing paper prepared for the Cabinet meeting. The briefing paper does explicitly say: 'no political decisions have been taken'. However, the complete sentence is:

Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. ['Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action', 21 July 2002, para. 6, published in the Sunday Times (London), 12 July 2005, and at]

So, contrary to the NYT fake rebuttal enabled by selective quoting, invasion planning is underway. The briefing paper says that 'military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace', however 'it lacks a political framework' [para. 1]. Translated from Foreign Office speak, the US planners had not sold the war to the US public, i.e. had not developed the political framework. That sale would come later because, 'From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August' [White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card in September 2003].

Memo Shows Bush Misled Public, Antiwar Group Says

The most recent NYT coverage [7] leads with:

Opponents of the war in Iraq held an unofficial hearing on Capitol Hill...to draw attention to a leaked British government document that they say proves that President Bush misled the public about his war plans in 2002...

Its hearing is downplayed as 'unofficial', and besides it is held by opponents of the war, so it is another antiwar event: No news here, keep moving. The article does not explain that the hearing was unofficial because Republicans refused to allow it to take place in the Congressional chambers.

Here is the well-designed second paragraph:

In a jammed room in the basement of the Capitol, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan...presided as witnesses asserted that the 'Downing Street memo'...vindicated their view that Mr. Bush made the decision to topple Saddam Hussein long before he has admitted.

It distances the reader with 'witnesses asserted' that the memo 'vindicated their view', rather than the direct 'the memo says...' The article eventually explains one of the memo's revelations: that Dearlove says Bush has decided on war. But the article omits the evidence for Dearlove's statement: a high-level trip to Washington, probably talking to George Tenet, head of the CIA. As far as the reader knows, Dearlove could just be sounding off.

This is about as solid as the evidence gets on these matters: By mid-summer 2002--at a time when Bush was still assuring the American public that he regarded war as a "last resort"--the president had in fact put it on his front burners.

Sounds promising, right?

Well, at the end of this article, Kaplan gets a little soft.

It's worth noting that "fixed around" is not synonymous with "fixed." To say that Bush and his aides "fixed" intelligence--as some Web sites claim the memo shows--would mean that they distorted or falsified it. To say "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" means that they were viewing, sifting, and interpreting intelligence in a way that would strengthen the case for their policy, for going to war.

Either way--"fixed" or "fixed around"--Bush and his aides had decided to let policy shape intelligence, not the other way around; they were explicitly politicizing intelligence.

"explicitly politicizing intelligence"???!!!

Jeezus, Kaplan!! I can't think of a better euphemism. Can you? George W. Bush and the neocons deliberately DECEIVED congress and (tried to) deliberately DECEIVE the rest of the world about the need to go to war at the time. This is not merely "politicizing intelligence". It is a CRIME OF THE WORST KIND.

We're not talking about selling a used car here.

Deliberately leaving out important evidence about the decision to go to war is a high crime.The "method" of deception is not an issue when determining if Bush & co. are guilty. This is what makes Kaplan's analyses absurd.

Oh, well. I guess we should be happy that it's finally getting some coverage from the MSM.